Jenkins v. Seifert

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

June 12, 2017

BRAD JENKINS, Plaintiff,v.JILL JENKINS SEIFERT, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AUDREY
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This
matter is before the Court on Defendant Jill Jenkins
Seifert's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). For reasons set forth
below, this motion shall be denied.

BACKGROUND

This
matter arises out of a dispute between siblings regarding the
disposition of their mother's assets and whether such
disposition was the result of Defendant's exercise of
undue influence over their mother. Plaintiff alleges in his
Complaint that Gene Jenkins (“Father”) initiated
divorce proceedings against Ruth Jenkins
(“Mother”) on or about March 2, 2012
(“Divorce Proceedings”). During the course of the
Divorce Proceedings, Mother executed a Durable Power of
Attorney granting “attorney general powers” to
Defendant, including the power to take complete charge of
Mother's assets and affairs and to sell, assign, or
convey real or personal property owned by Mother. ECF. No.
1-2. On January 22, 2013, Defendant was appointed
Mother's guardian ad litem and, following the
Divorce Proceedings, Defendant was reappointed as
Mother's guardian ad litem. In the affidavits in
support of her appointment and reappointment as guardian
ad litem, [1] Defendant represented that “[Mother]
is currently incapacitated to act in her own best interest
and to participate as a party in the pending cause of action
because of the effects of depression, alcoholism, multiple
medications.” ECF Nos. 1-3, 1-4. Defendant also
represented that Mother contacted her directly and requested
that Defendant act as Mother's guardian ad
litem. Id. After Defendant was reappointed
Mother's guardian ad litem, Mother moved from
St. Louis County, Missouri to Harris County, Texas to reside
with Defendant.

Plaintiff
claims that at the time the Divorce Proceedings were
finalized, Mother possessed assets valued at approximately
$750, 000.00, including bank accounts, investment accounts,
proceeds from the sale of real property, personal property,
retirement, disability, and death benefit payments, and
social security payments (collectively,
“Assets”). Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint
that a vast majority of Mother's assets were in
investment accounts with Edward Jones (“Edward Jones
Accounts”). Mother designated Defendant as the sole
beneficiary of the Edwards Jones Accounts on February 15,
2013, three years before Mother's death. Plaintiff
alleges in his Complaint that from “at least January 2,
2013 until the date of her death on February 21, 2016,
[Mother] was incapacitated and incompetent to handle her own
affairs.” ECF No. 1 at ¶ 10.

On
February 21, 2016, Mother died without a will as a resident
of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit
asserting five counts against Defendant for: (1) a
declaration that the lifetime transfers of property are void
or invalid due to undue influence and ordering Defendant to
repay the amounts received; (2) declaratory relief to void or
invalidate the Edward Jones Account transfers and order
Defendant to repay the amount received; (3) discovery of
assets under Missouri law; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; and
(5) conversion. Plaintiff asserts diversity jurisdiction as
Plaintiff resides in Missouri, Defendant resides in Texas,
and the Assets challenged in the Complaint exceed $75,
000.00. In response, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b).

ARGUMENTS
OF THE PARTIES

Defendant
argues in her motion that venue is improper and that,
therefore, the action should be dismissed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). Specifically, Defendant
argues under the so-called “probate exception” to
federal jurisdiction that purely probate matters cannot be
adjudicated in federal courts based upon diversity of
citizenship, and that this action must be adjudicated in the
probate court in Harris County, Texas, which has exclusive
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Defendant further
contends that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because
Plaintiff lacks standing to assert his claims as an
“heir” of Mother's estate because no
proceeding to determine heirship has taken place and, as a
result, there has been no judicial determination of the
“heirs” of Mother's estate, as required by
the Texas Estates Code. ECF No. 5.

In
response, Plaintiff argues his claims do not fall within the
probate exception because the assets at issue are not and
were never part of Mother's estate and he is seeking
redress from Defendant personally for acts undertaken in her
individual capacity, not in her capacity as the administrator
of Mother's estate. Plaintiff further argues that it is
undisputed that he is an heir to Mother's estate because
Defendant, in her Application for Letters of Administration,
represented to the Texas probate court that she and Plaintiff
were the only heirs. ECF No. 6.

LEGAL
STANDARD

To
survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a
plaintiff's allegations must contain “sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). The reviewing court must accept the plaintiff's
factual allegations as true and construe them in
plaintiff's favor, but it is not required to accept the
legal conclusions the plaintiff draws from the facts alleged.
Id. at 678; Retro Television Network, Inc. v.
Luken Commc'ns, LLC, 696 F.3d 766, 768-69 (8th Cir.
2012). A court must “draw on its judicial experience
and common sense, ” and consider the plausibility of
the plaintiff's claim as a whole, not the plausibility of
each individual allegation. Zoltek Corp. v. Structural
Polymer Grp., 592 F.3d 893, 896 n.4 (8th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).

Although
Defendant filed her motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) for
improper venue, her argument is really a challenge to this
Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant argues in
her motion to dismiss that the Assets referenced in
Plaintiff's Complaint are within the jurisdiction of the
probate court and concern purely probate matters. ECF No. 5
at ¶ 14. In response, Plaintiff argues that because the
Assets challenged in the Complaint were either transferred
during Mother's lifetime or were transferred upon death,
they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the probate court
and instead may be adjudicated in this ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.